A simple experiement demonstrating spontaneous generation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I did not disinfect the surface of the seed in fear that I might ruin it (it needs to sprout roots in order for the experiment to work). I also did not have my jar covered to prevent airborne cysts from drifting in.

What would be useful is time-lapsed photography to see if the Paramecium are evolving from the bacteria.

It’s just that I do not trust science. The theory of evolution, for example, I feel is a scam.
Bold mine

You do not trust science, but you are trying to use science to prove your ideas.

When those of us who do know how science works ask you if your experiment was properly controlled, you admit it was not but demand that we take the result seriously anyway. This wasn’t an experiment. It was so badly designed and carried out as to be useless. There is nothing that you can take from this, as there are so many other possible answers that you might as well have taken some water out of a puddle and argued spontaneous generation from that.

In science, we do not use our “feelings”. We experiment and test but if the results are not what we expect, we accept that, once all possible errors have been discounted. There are many examples of scientists who supported one hypothesis being the ones whose experimental results were the ones that proved the rival hypothesis. Science does not indulge in “scams”, why would it? What possible reason for doing so could it have? Science is about discovery, not cover-ups.
 
You do not trust science, but you are trying to use science to prove your ideas.
I do not trust “science” as it is used in our world to explain things. I believe in experimentation as long as the results are not biased or based on lies.

I have a great respect for technology, but I do not believe that earthly “science” is responsible for its huge success. I believe that all technology come from an underground world. I believe all “science” is already known in Heaven. If God is all-knowing, then why not pray and listen to Him?
 
I do not trust “science” as it is used in our world to explain things. I believe in experimentation as long as the results are not biased or based on lies.

I have a great respect for technology, but I do not believe that earthly “science” is responsible for its huge success. I believe that all technology come from an underground world. I believe all “science” is already known in Heaven. If God is all-knowing, then why not pray and listen to Him?
The Catholic Church is very involved in science, it runs the Vatican Observatory (many of the staff are priests and monks), it has a highly respected conference at the Holy Father’s summer home, every year.

Science is not “based on lies” or “biased results”, science simply does not work that way. You have to convince yourself that there is some huge conspiracy going on, in order to justify your beliefs. It is simply impossible for there to be conspiracies or cover-ups in science, it is self-correcting.

You want to dismiss scientists as a bunch of “liars” and reject scientific explanations. You carry out an “experiment” so flawed as to be useless, because you don’t understand science. You asked me in an earlier post, how you had demonstated that you did not understand biology and the nature of science. You have done so in the experiment you carried out and your failure to understand why it is not proof of spontaneous generation.

You high handedly dismiss science and then want to use it to prove your point. When we tell you that it doesn’t prove your point, you argue on the grounds that it is what you believe is true, that because you don’t trust (or understand) science that we must all be wrong. Just to top it off, you assume that science is full of lies and liars. Scientist cannot be responsible for any good outcomes, it must have been God.

If you are so opposed to science, then don’t use the internet, that depends on science and was actually invented at a particle physics laboratory, the famous CERN. You also can’t have any medical treatments, drive a car and most of the other things you do everyday. Blessed Pope John Paul said that faith and reason (which includes science) are the two wings on which we soar to God. You cannot fly with just one wing, so faith without reason cannot take you to God.

You suggest I should pray and listen to God, I spend at least two hours every day doing just that. You assume that anyone who believes in God must join you in rejecting science. Science and faith are complementary, not enemies.
 
The Catholic Church is very involved in science, it runs the Vatican Observatory (many of the staff are priests and monks), it has a highly respected conference at the Holy Father’s summer home, every year.

Science is not “based on lies” or “biased results”, science simply does not work that way. You have to convince yourself that there is some huge conspiracy going on, in order to justify your beliefs. It is simply impossible for there to be conspiracies or cover-ups in science, it is self-correcting.

You want to dismiss scientists as a bunch of “liars” and reject scientific explanations. You carry out an “experiment” so flawed as to be useless, because you don’t understand science. You asked me in an earlier post, how you had demonstated that you did not understand biology and the nature of science. You have done so in the experiment you carried out and your failure to understand why it is not proof of spontaneous generation.

You high handedly dismiss science and then want to use it to prove your point. When we tell you that it doesn’t prove your point, you argue on the grounds that it is what you believe is true, that because you don’t trust (or understand) science that we must all be wrong. Just to top it off, you assume that science is full of lies and liars. Scientist cannot be responsible for any good outcomes, it must have been God.

If you are so opposed to science, then don’t use the internet, that depends on science and was actually invented at a particle physics laboratory, the famous CERN. You also can’t have any medical treatments, drive a car and most of the other things you do everyday. Blessed Pope John Paul said that faith and reason (which includes science) are the two wings on which we soar to God. You cannot fly with just one wing, so faith without reason cannot take you to God.

You suggest I should pray and listen to God, I spend at least two hours every day doing just that. You assume that anyone who believes in God must join you in rejecting science. Science and faith are complementary, not enemies.
It is a dinky experiment, I admit that. I’m a research psychologist, not a biologist. But you should see that the experiment has the face validity that makes it appear to be a demonstration of spontaneous generation. If I’m in error, I’m very surprised this experiment is not in introduction biology textbooks as an example of where spontaneous generation gets explained away, like with the other spontaneous generation experiments that get explained away.

I’m a deep believer in faith and reason, it’s science that I seriously question. Also, I’m not against technology (again, I believe it’s from an underground world, and it amazes the heck out of me), but again, I’m against science.
 
It is a dinky experiment, I admit that. I’m a research psychologist, not a biologist. But you should see that the experiment has the face validity that makes it appear to be a demonstration of spontaneous generation. If I’m in error, I’m very surprised this experiment is not in introduction biology textbooks as an example of where spontaneous generation gets explained away, like with the other spontaneous generation experiments that get explained away.

I’m a deep believer in faith and reason, it’s science that I seriously question. Also, I’m not against technology (again, I believe it’s from an underground world, and it amazes the heck out of me), but again, I’m against science.
Your “dinky” experiment does not have face, or any other, validity, because when we all asked if you had excluded other ways of the lifeforms entering the water, you admitted you had not. The experiment is not in science textbooks to explain away spontaneous generation because it would be too simplistic. It would be obvious to most students, if they had carried it out the way you did, that there were many other ways to explain the results of this “experiment”.

Science is reasonable, you are not being reasonable. You are arguing based on feeling and beliefs, not reason and certainly not science. If you disapprove of science then you should stop practising psychology immediately, as you will not use the scientific method, and stop using technology because it is only possible due to the discoveries of science. You must also stop using all the other things I mentioned in the previous post, if you get sick, all you have is prayer.

You have the right to reject science, but what you can’t do is reject it and then misuse it to argue for your beliefs and feelings. Science is still true, despite your rejection of it, all that rejecting it does is make your life poorer, you less knowledgable and rob your life of the wonder it inspires.
 
It is a dinky experiment, I admit that. I’m a research psychologist, not a biologist. But you should see that the experiment has the face validity that makes it appear to be a demonstration of spontaneous generation. If I’m in error, I’m very surprised this experiment is not in introduction biology textbooks as an example of where spontaneous generation gets explained away, like with the other spontaneous generation experiments that get explained away.

I’m a deep believer in faith and reason, it’s science that I seriously question. Also, I’m not against technology (again, I believe it’s from an underground world, and it amazes the heck out of me), but again, I’m against science.
You can’t have technology without science. It’s the scientific method that discovers the laws that make machines possible.

ICXC NIKA.
 
You can’t have technology without science. It’s the scientific method that discovers the laws that make machines possible.

ICXC NIKA.
I believe in science, it’s just our earthly science that I have trouble with. People worship earthly science like a god when it comes to our world.
 
As a research psychologist, you must set up experiments, right? Or at least if you’re researching and evaluating others’ work, you’d have to be careful to check whether the results could have been influenced by unknown outside factors; otherwise you couldn’t be sure your conclusions were at all valid.

In your experiment, you have at least five plausible explanations I can think of for why the paramecia re-appeared, and which have to be ruled out first.

  1. *]Their spores re-entered via the air.
    *]There were spores lodged on the seed.
    *]There were spores on your fingers.
    *]You breathed and there were spores in your breath, or paramecia in your spittle.
    *]The spores didn’t die.
    *]Paramecial Quantum Teleportation

    You didn’t rule any of these out, or apparently take any precautions to make sure they didn’t happen, so how do you jump directly to spontaneous generation? Why not my own pet theory, Paramecial Quantum Teleportation? Granted, that’s a bigger leap, but you’ve still jumped to conclusions without any basis for doing so.
 
As a research psychologist, you must set up experiments, right? Or at least if you’re researching and evaluating others’ work, you’d have to be careful to check whether the results could have been influenced by unknown outside factors; otherwise you couldn’t be sure your conclusions were at all valid.

In your experiment, you have at least five plausible explanations I can think of for why the paramecia re-appeared, and which have to be ruled out first.

  1. *]Their spores re-entered via the air.
    *]There were spores lodged on the seed.
    *]There were spores on your fingers.
    *]You breathed and there were spores in your breath, or paramecia in your spittle.
    *]The spores didn’t die.
    *]Paramecial Quantum Teleportation

    You didn’t rule any of these out, or apparently take any precautions to make sure they didn’t happen, so how do you jump directly to spontaneous generation? Why not my own pet theory, Paramecial Quantum Teleportation? Are you biased against PQT?

  1. What the heck is Paramecial Quantum Teleportation? I’m very interested to know.
 
What the heck is Paramecial Quantum Teleportation? I’m very interested to know.
🙂 Just trying to bring some levity. My point was that there’s no basis for you to conclude Spontaneous Generation over any other far-fetched theory. You were biased toward Spontaneous Generation, so you ignored all the plausible ways the experiment could be invalidated to jump to that conclusion.
 
As a research psychologist, you must set up experiments, right? Or at least if you’re researching and evaluating others’ work, you’d have to be careful to check whether the results could have been influenced by unknown outside factors; otherwise you couldn’t be sure your conclusions were at all valid.

In your experiment, you have at least five plausible explanations I can think of for why the paramecia re-appeared, and which have to be ruled out first.

  1. *]Their spores re-entered via the air.
    *]There were spores lodged on the seed.
    *]There were spores on your fingers.
    *]You breathed and there were spores in your breath, or paramecia in your spittle.
    *]The spores didn’t die.
    *]Paramecial Quantum Teleportation

    You didn’t rule any of these out, or apparently take any precautions to make sure they didn’t happen, so how do you jump directly to spontaneous generation? Why not my own pet theory, Paramecial Quantum Teleportation? Granted, that’s a bigger leap, but you’ve still jumped to conclusions without any basis for doing so.

  1. BTW: Paramecium are single cell animals, and they do not develop from spores.
 
I believe in science, it’s just our earthly science that I have trouble with. People worship earthly science like a god when it comes to our world.
What is “earthly science”? You seem to mean “science that I don’t like because I think it challenges my faith”. I don’t know of any scientists who “worship” science, they do not pray to it, or offer it sacrifices in the hope of changing it. There are many religious scientists. Just because some people use science as a weapon against religion does not make it wrong, any more than the actions of members of the Westboro Baptist Church makes religion wrong.

All your arguments against science as based on feelings. If you’re a psychologist, then surely you must know that feelings are a very poor basis for decision making. It is knowledge, hard facts that are the things that should influence our decisions, if they are to be logical, consistent and correct. Science has provided hard facts that support it’s theories, they are not based on the feelings of the scientist.
 
All your arguments against science as based on feelings. If you’re a psychologist, then surely you must know that feelings are a very poor basis for decision making. It is knowledge, hard facts that are the things that should influence our decisions, if they are to be logical, consistent and correct. Science has provided hard facts that support it’s theories, they are not based on the feelings of the scientist.
I’ve been all around and have seen so much shabby psychological research that it’s pathetic.

The theory of evolution is a scam, pure and simple.

After buying a cheap microscope I began my quest to disprove “earthly science.” On my fist try with Paramecium, I succeeded in discovering what I believed to be spontaneous generation.
 
I’ve been all around and have seen so much shabby psychological research that it’s pathetic.

The theory of evolution is a scam, pure and simple.
A “scam” that has been run since 1859? Who benefits from it? A scam always has someone who benefits.

I am aware that the topic of evolution is disallowed on the forum; however, how we got these natural bodies is of no consequence to how we live our life in them.

ICXC NIKA.
 
A “scam” that has been run since 1859? Who benefits from it? A scam always has someone who benefits.

I am aware that the topic of evolution is disallowed on the forum; however, how we got these natural bodies is of no consequence to how we live our life in them.

ICXC NIKA.
We live in a world of lies and deception to the max. Just take a look at what happened to the world over the past 150 years. How could such a change take place if it were not for an underworld that guides and directs us.

From an old thread I posted, how many people do you know that has the innate wit to figure out a good method of mass producing simple boxes of toothpicks? Take a close look at the world in front of you and ask how all the products that get mass produced is possible with our very limited innate wit. Designing a computer chip is absolutely stunning, but designing and building the machines to mass produce them is absolutely mind-boggling.

Can anybody here hear and see what I’m saying? Our world is controlled by an advanced underworld! What we see is deception!
 
It is true that individuals cannot mass produce anything; for that you need a large general society.

When it comes to the human mind in society, the whole really is more than the sum of it’s parts.
 
It is true that individuals cannot mass produce anything; for that you need a large general society.

When it comes to the human mind in society, the whole really is more than the sum of it’s parts.
The only thing the human mind in society is good for is reading, writing and arguing! Just look at the threads on CAF!
 
The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because we fail to notice
that we fail to notice
there is little we can do
to change
until we notice
how failing to notice
shapes our thoughts and deeds.

–R. D. Laing.
 
I’ve been all around and have seen so much shabby psychological research that it’s pathetic.

The theory of evolution is a scam, pure and simple.

After buying a cheap microscope I began my quest to disprove “earthly science.” On my fist try with Paramecium, I succeeded in discovering what I believed to be spontaneous generation. We live in a world of lies and deception to the max. Just take a look at what happened to the world over the past 150 years. How could such a change take place if it were not for an underworld that guides and directs us.
You do not use the scientific method to assess things so you do not have any right to criticise anyone else’s research.

As another poster pointed out, a scam must have someone who profits. There is no profit in making up a scientific theory. As has been pointed out to you several times, we are not permitted to discuss evolution on CAF. Suffice to say, evolution is not a scam, it is a logical theory that is well proven in science.

You still have not explained what you mean by “earthly science”. You have taken it upon yourself to “disprove” it with very inferior equipment and a understanding of science and biology that would shame a first year university student. You have also broken a cardinal rule in science, you have gone into the experiment with preconcived ideas. Many scientific breakthroughs have occured when scientists found something that disproved the theory they were trying to test or, where two rival ideas were being investigated, that supported the theory of their “rival” team. All of these scientists wrote up those experiments and published them, giving the evidence necessary to discount their own hypothesis.

You have said that you “believe” that you have demonstrated spontaneous generation. We have all tried, time and again to point out to you that you have not, as there are several ways for the lifeforms you mention to have got into the water. I make a home-made spray for my hair. In order to avoid it smelling, I have to boil the water I use for at least a couple of hours, in order to kill anything that may be living in the water and remove any other chemicals. You did not state how long you boiled the water for, but I doubt it was that long. You also admitted that you did not protect it from airborne contamination, and you do not mention having surgical sterility or at least a clean field plus gloves and a mask, which would be necessary to prevent you contaminating the sample.

You speak of an underworld that “guides and directs us”. Are you suggesting that science is controlled by Satan? If so, then you must immediately stop using all science and technology, as to do so would be to worship Satan.

I have heard similar statements from people in my own science, astronomy and astrophysics. We always get the conspiracy theorists who believe that UFOs exist, man never landed on the Moon, that a planet is going to crash into or pass close to the Earth in 2003/2007/next-year-sometime or finally, that Comet Elenin is behaving “strangely” and is going to hit us. These people hold the same views you do, that science is a “scam” or “lies”, that there is some shadowy organisation that controls science and prevents the “truth” from getting out. If I were really involved in so many cover-ups, I would be earning a heck of a lot more than I actually do. Science simply does not work in that way. There cannot be cover-ups or conspiracies, as no group controls “science”.
From an old thread I posted, how many people do you know that has the innate wit to figure out a good method of mass producing simple boxes of toothpicks? Take a close look at the world in front of you and ask how all the products that get mass produced is possible with our very limited innate wit. Designing a computer chip is absolutely stunning, but designing and building the machines to mass produce them is absolutely mind-boggling.
Can anybody here hear and see what I’m saying? Our world is controlled by an advanced underworld! What we see is deception!
I know several people with the inate wit to figure out a good method of mass producing toothpicks. The people who invented the infra-red cameras and laser doppler bloodflow devices that saved me from having my leg amputated at age 8, the leader of the same team who set to and invented a way of cooling my burning foot without exposing it to direct contact with water (we called it “the water welly”). I met several people at university who solved little everyday inconviences simply through thinking about it. I also find that my training has allowed me to do this, if I could afford the fees, I’d have four patents to my name.

You inate wit may be limited, but that is not the case for many, many people. You have admitted to me that you do not understand technology. How can you then say that it is impossible for humans to have invented it? It may boggle your mind to design a machine that builds computer chips but it doesn’t boggle mine.

We can all hear and see what you are saying. You seem unable, or unwilling, to hear and see what we are all telling you: you’re wrong.
 
The only thing the human mind in society is good for is reading, writing and arguing! Just look at the threads on CAF!
RW&A is precisely how information is transmitted to the millions of minds whose hands do the mass production. The key is division of labor.

In your example of toothpicks, it would make no sense for me, as an individual, to try and manufacture them. I do not have the materials or the equipment to make them; wood does not grow of a suitable quality near me; I do not have materiel or equipment to print the boxes; if I acquired all of this stuff, I could never amortize those costs at a reasonable price. Individual manufacturing even of a minor item makes no sense.

However, with enough people, the efforts of loggers, machinists, paper mills, truckers etc allow this and much more vital production to go through.

Kind of like how your billions of neurons work in union to move your limbs, draw your breath, project your voice, form your memories and generate your mind; the millions of human minds in the general society work together to create things that are beyond any individual’s power to make happen. No mysterious underworld need be invoked. (It isn’t there anyhow; the earth is mostly solid.)

God Bless and ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top